Is it time once again to nerf the Python?

[Mephane]

Lol, how can it be "crippled" after a balance pass if you call it the "BEST" all round ship right now? Wouldn't it merely be "balanced"?

That's funny. The "best" all around ship, if you look only at the sum of raw power, toughness, weapons, potential cargo capacity, and so on, is not the Python, but the Anaconda.

 

[Titan1978]

Its time to Nerf the Nerfers! Getting sick of the whole Nerf everything thread that's cropping up like clockwork!

 

[Dominatus01]

Its time to Nerf the Nerfers! Getting sick of the whole Nerf everything thread that's cropping up like clockwork!

+1 Enough with the whinging. Play the game & enjoy it, or simply don't play! Simples...

 

[Poseidal]

That's funny. The "best" all around ship, if you look only at the sum of raw power, toughness, weapons, potential cargo capacity, and so on, is not the Python, but the Anaconda.

This is also true, but I think they both symptoms of the larger all-purpose ships having too many perks and too few drawbacks. The last CG was dominated by Anacondas and Pythons; it used to be Pythons but it is likely it was because Anacondas were out of the price range of most CMDRs at the time.

The Anaconda turn rate especially seems a bit high, being IIRC faster at turning than everything more massive than an Asp outside of the blue-zone.

 

[Quineloe]

The type 7 is just a really terrible ship. That's all there is to it. It would also lose when compared to the often cheaper Imperial Clipper. If I were Fd, I'd give the type 7 another 96t of cargo to make up for this.

 

[Poseidal]

The type 7 is just a really terrible ship. That's all there is to it. It would also lose when compared to the often cheaper Imperial Clipper. If I were Fd, I'd give the type 7 another 96t of cargo to make up for this.

Yep, if it had more Cargo space than the Python (which can easily reach 284) then it will at least have some viability. It looks like it could have the internal space, compared with the flatter Python.

 

[Snarfbuckle]

The Anaconda turn rate especially seems a bit high, being IIRC faster at turning than everything more massive than an Asp outside of the blue-zone.

I honestly think that a balance pass is required for most ships.

The Anaconda is a Maneuverability 2 ship, and so is the Dropship - Neither ship seems THAT sluggish.

While PRICE indicate a ships effectiveness I do think some ships have it a bit too easy at being good at anything. But I honestly dont think the solution is to nerf the SHIPS. A lot of the fault is a combination of HULL's and MODULES.

Shield Boosters and SCB stacking is for example VERY easy on the Anaconda but the ship IS the largest ship you can get. It's a light cruiser unlike the Viper which is a small patrol craft.

Still, the way guns and modules work makes it EASY to defend against lighter crafts. Personally I think this is a fault with having turrets that are too accurate and that turrets and gimbals can target modules.

Let modules be targeted by locking weapons like missiles and using FIXED guns. Turrets are not sniping weapons. Let the size of a turret limit it's tracking speed against smaller vessels.

Historically there are two things that are dangerous to large combat vessels, an equivalent vessel with comparitive firepower, or a group of small vessels that the larger vessel is not designed to fight as a primary target.

You dont use the main artillery on the USS Missouri against fighters, you use defensive AA guns. While the Anaconda has an awesome choice of weapons the LARGE and HUGE class of weapons should have a VERY hard time tracking a small vessel. Medium guns should do well but not as quick as small guns.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes I believe the Type-7 Height forced it to use the Large over the medium pad

I switched from the Clipper to the Dropship simply because of the pads.

Yea, I loose a Large weapon but gain X2 mediums so it weights up.

 

[hunvagy]

The type 7 is just a really terrible ship. That's all there is to it. It would also lose when compared to the often cheaper Imperial Clipper. If I were Fd, I'd give the type 7 another 96t of cargo to make up for this.

Or a shield buff. A T7 with A6 Shields has 40MJ less then an Asp with an A5. And by putting an A6 on it, you sacrifice a metric ton of cargo potential. It comes to the same total you usual have in a Clipper, but it's slower and definitely a lot more vunerable then a clipper, at almost the same base price tag.

 

[Poseidal]

I honestly think that a balance pass is required for most ships.

The Anaconda is a Maneuverability 2 ship, and so is the Dropship - Neither ship seems THAT sluggish.

While PRICE indicate a ships effectiveness I do think some ships have it a bit too easy at being good at anything. But I honestly dont think the solution is to nerf the SHIPS. A lot of the fault is a combination of HULL's and MODULES.

Shield Boosters and SCB stacking is for example VERY easy on the Anaconda but the ship IS the largest ship you can get. It's a light cruiser unlike the Viper which is a small patrol craft.

Still, the way guns and modules work makes it EASY to defend against lighter crafts. Personally I think this is a fault with having turrets that are too accurate and that turrets and gimbals can target modules.

Let modules be targeted by locking weapons like missiles and using FIXED guns. Turrets are not sniping weapons. Let the size of a turret limit it's tracking speed against smaller vessels.

Historically there are two things that are dangerous to large combat vessels, an equivalent vessel with comparitive firepower, or a group of small vessels that the larger vessel is not designed to fight as a primary target.

You dont use the main artillery on the USS Missouri against fighters, you use defensive AA guns. While the Anaconda has an awesome choice of weapons the LARGE and HUGE class of weapons should have a VERY hard time tracking a small vessel. Medium guns should do well but not as quick as small guns.

I agree, a balance pass on everything would be welcome.

I switched from the Clipper to the Dropship simply because of the pads.

Yea, I loose a Large weapon but gain X2 mediums so it weights up.

2 mediums is more firepower than a single large against shields, distributor allowing. It isn't that far behind against hull.

1 large does 75% of the damage against shields as 2 mediums, while 2 mediums does (if there is a 1/3 penalty) 88% the damage against the hull of a large ship (and more damage than the large against medium and small ships).

Of course, this is with a comparable weapon (e.g. lasers).

A medium hardpoint cannon does not have the penalty against hull because the cannon class of weapons is designed to hit above their weight, so I consider 2 medium cannon (which also have faster travel time) completely superior to a single class 3 cannon.

And mediums get multi-cannon, of course.

 

[Majinvash]

The simple answer that would help both traders and pirates a like, would be to buff the cargo dedicated ships :

1) Make them tough, not a flying coffin filled with GOLD. Give them STRONG shields without it crippling their cargo storage.
2) A real money maker. Huge cargo carrying abilities
3) Stronger jump rangers to compensate for the increased weight. Lets not add to the grind.
4) Additional Utility slots for counter measures, chaff, mines ( haha i know )

If I was to rebalance, I would have it the following ways

T6 still cheap but double its capacity. No changes to the ship, as it should carry the risk vs reward. But it should still be able to carry shielding.
T7 double its price but should have the storage of the T9 and be made of pig iron, a solid hard to stop work horse with strong shields.
T9 silly initial cost but should be the king dingaling of money making with 1000+ tonnes of storage and still retraining a very strong shield. Made of pig iron behind nails. If the shields drop, its hard to stop.

Leave the Python and Conda as they are, as they are multi purpose. The Cargo ships should be that, big flying warehouses

Increase the speed and ability of cargo collection drones, to make pirating less of a grind.
Increase greatly the amount of cargo dropped from a smashed cargo hatch.
Increase the max cargo number in instances out of station space instances.
Create a separate save file for either Solo/Pirate or Open. ( Don't scream about this one please, it just makes a lot of sense )

Now of course, there is no risk to traders who play in safe mode but this would make Open a more balanced experience for all concerned.

Majinvash
The Voice of Open

 

[Theodrid]

Create a separate save file for either Solo/Pirate or Open. ( Don't scream about this one please, it just makes a lot of sense )

in safe mode

Majinvash
The Voice of Open

Damn Majin, really thought I could get behind one of your posts for the first time then you do that.........some good points badly diluted.

 

[Witcherman]

The simple answer that would help both traders and pirates a like, would be to buff the cargo dedicated ships :

Now of course, there is no risk to traders who play in safe mode but this would make Open a more balanced experience for all concerned.

Majinvash
The Voice of Open

I like where you're going with all this.

I, for one, would certainly have played more open while trading if all the margins weren't so low and the risk of losing sooooo much on destruction of my ship weren't always looming over my head. Now that I have a good sum of money built up in the bank account, I'm planning to move over to open and role play more since any single loss from either pirating or psycho-killers won't affect me so severely. Which means I'll actually enjoy the experience, which is the point of the whole game...right?

I actually like the idea of "honest" piracy as it makes the game so much more colorful, but it's the psycho-killers that I just don't have any time in my life for, that's why I went solo play for so long.

I still think that cargo ships would be a lot more viable if they were able to carry "turreted" missile launchers. It makes sense for cargo ships as they're big enough to have these and they would be mainly a defensive weapon. Oh well, I guess we'll have to wait and see what FD comes up with.

 

[Mephane]

Let the size of a turret limit it's tracking speed against smaller vessels.

FYI, that already is the case. Smaller turrets have much faster tracking and reactions than larger turrets.

 

[Jockey79]

The simple answer that would help both traders and pirates a like, would be to buff the cargo dedicated ships :

1) Make them tough, not a flying coffin filled with GOLD. Give them STRONG shields without it crippling their cargo storage.
2) A real money maker. Huge cargo carrying abilities
3) Stronger jump rangers to compensate for the increased weight. Lets not add to the grind.
4) Additional Utility slots for counter measures, chaff, mines ( haha i know )

If I was to rebalance, I would have it the following ways

T6 still cheap but double its capacity. No changes to the ship, as it should carry the risk vs reward. But it should still be able to carry shielding.
T7 double its price but should have the storage of the T9 and be made of pig iron, a solid hard to stop work horse with strong shields.
T9 silly initial cost but should be the king dingaling of money making with 1000+ tonnes of storage and still retraining a very strong shield. Made of pig iron behind nails. If the shields drop, its hard to stop.

Leave the Python and Conda as they are, as they are multi purpose. The Cargo ships should be that, big flying warehouses

Increase the speed and ability of cargo collection drones, to make pirating less of a grind.
Increase greatly the amount of cargo dropped from a smashed cargo hatch.
Increase the max cargo number in instances out of station space instances.
Create a separate save file for either Solo/Pirate or Open. ( Don't scream about this one please, it just makes a lot of sense )

Now of course, there is no risk to traders who play in safe mode but this would make Open a more balanced experience for all concerned.

Majinvash
The Voice of Open

I like your ideas. +rep

Now I'm off to check my blood alcohol levels, as I don't remember drinking this morning

 

[Majinvash]

Damn Majin, really thought I could get behind one of your posts for the first time then you do that.........some good points badly diluted.

Not diluted at all.

Think about the context of my post and lets try and not have this merged.

But if you buff one part THAT much and also want it to buff the currently under valued career path of piracy, you have to think about how it would be exploited. The smuggling issue of late, is proof of that.

Whether you agree with PVP or not, its a huge part of the game and PVP requires OPEN.

Open requires Trades, Pirates and bounty hunters to give it any form of balance.

Most traders are smart enough now to hide in Solo or Private to avoid unwanted credit loss due to player piracy.

Open CG's are now more a place to meet for wing PVP than they are for trading to achieve the goal.

Having a save game that is locked to your chosen mode completely make sense in that context, risk vs reward.

If a player is a Solo or Private player wants to remove PVP that is their right and they chose that because they want a PVE experience.
It should be right that that experience cannot be then carried over to Open because they now have a battle conda, which they traded to in Solo.

My statement should only upset people who want to exploit a system like that.

Solo trade = Open battle Conda

Majinvash
The Voice of Open

 

[Theodrid]

My point was Majin, you made some good points regarding some balancing options, there was no need for the other stuff I quoted, I'm sure 99% of the forum user base are aware of your feelings towards those 'other things'.

 

[Majinvash]

My point was Majin, you made some good points regarding some balancing options, there was no need for the other stuff I quoted, I'm sure 99% of the forum user base are aware of your feelings towards those 'other things'.

You need to read it in the context it is put.

Everyone want balance and challenge, this gives that.

Why would a PVE player who has access to Mobius want to play in Open anyway? Unless they are using it as a safe way to make credits.

Majinvash
The Voice of Open

 

[Witcherman]

Enough with the nerfing, the Python already got the nerf hammer, and that was not to the good side.
Its very expensive, and not really particular an OP ship anymore.

Would you take less cargo capacity on the Python for a greater jump range? I would!

I love my Python but it feels a little off balance right now and I agree with the OP that the Python having more cargo capacity than the T7 is like the Asp having more cargo capacity than the T6 back in the beta days.

As the Python is the next step up from the Asp in the line of "all-rounder" ships, I would LOVE to have a greater jump range at the expense of a little cargo capacity and it would make sooo much sense to me that the T7 (a large pad, dedicated cargo ship) should have more cargo capacity than a Python.

But to me, this isn't "nerfing" the Python, it's re-balancing it, since you would be trading jump range for cargo capacity.

But that's just my two cents.

 

[Theodrid]

You need to read it in the context it is put.

Everyone want balance and challenge, this gives that.

Why would a PVE player who has access to Mobius want to play in Open anyway? Unless they are using it as a safe way to make credits.

Majinvash
The Voice of Open

Majin, as you are in danger of getting this thread merged with your references to the modes I will leave it there, suffice to say, you made some good points regarding balancing, it didn't/doesn't have to be dependant on anything unless you make it that way in your head.

 

[Zelos1983]

As the Python is the next step up from the Asp in the line of "all-rounder" ships, I would LOVE to have a greater jump range at the expense of a little cargo capacity and it would make sooo much sense to me that the T7 (a large pad, dedicated cargo ship) should have more cargo capacity than a Python.

First: you CAN already increase your jump range by not fitting and filling cargo racks.
Second: If you take the "cargo" capacity away, you take away the multi-role aspect. Such ships need to house a large number of modules filling multiple roles.

I would really stay away from nerfing ships, doing "balancing passes" etc. It's something that we don't need and that annoys players. Many of us want to just play instead of refit and rebuy our fleet with every patch because stuff has changed without making any sense.